TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

The General US Politics Thread

Go To

Nov 2023 Mod notice:


There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.

If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines before posting here.

Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.

If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules when posting here.


In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.

Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM

Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#48476: Jan 30th 2013 at 2:58:05 AM

To be fair, there is no good solution to Gitmo. The prisoners are there, and the only alternatives are to return them home (even worse than keeping them) or to let them loose in America (politically untenable).

An attack on Guantanamo presumes a liberal militia, and the odds of that are utterly negligible; while the right wing embraces people who talk about rising up and shooting our government, the left runs far away from anyone who talks like that.

Euodiachloris Since: Oct, 2010
#48477: Jan 30th 2013 at 3:28:04 AM

They should never have been taken there in the first place. <_< However, you can't get the yolk back into the egg.

About the only way to deal with this is the suck up the damage already done: compensate and release. Sure, you'll be sending minty-fresh hard-liners back home. Thing is, most of them probably weren't hard-liners until they got put through hell. tongue You'd just have to try to keep tabs. From a distance.

And, try not to screw up their lives, again, without cause. tongue The damage is done. Just hanging on to them because they "might" cause problems? Is a profound violation of human rights, and because of that, whatever happens is just deserts. Limbo is no solution.

Personal opinion.

edited 30th Jan '13 3:28:53 AM by Euodiachloris

Achaemenid HGW XX/7 from Ruschestraße 103, Haus 1 Since: Dec, 2011 Relationship Status: Giving love a bad name
HGW XX/7
#48478: Jan 30th 2013 at 5:47:10 AM

Why not give them the trials they are being held for?

Schild und Schwert der Partei
Euodiachloris Since: Oct, 2010
#48479: Jan 30th 2013 at 5:54:17 AM

[up]If they had enough to secure conviction, surely the damn trials would have happened already? tongue

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#48480: Jan 30th 2013 at 5:55:05 AM

Trials? In what venue? Most of the cases would be thrown out in a U.S. court because of torture. Never mind Congress passing laws forbidding them from being brought into the States.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Greenmantle V from Greater Wessex, Britannia Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: Hiding
V
#48481: Jan 30th 2013 at 5:57:34 AM

I suppose the other alternative would be some sort International Court, like the one in The Hague — but that wouldn't fly for obvious reasons...

Keep Rolling On
Achaemenid HGW XX/7 from Ruschestraße 103, Haus 1 Since: Dec, 2011 Relationship Status: Giving love a bad name
HGW XX/7
#48482: Jan 30th 2013 at 6:17:26 AM

[up][up]

If they are unjustly detained, why should they not have trials? Is there no US court to govern the offshore territories?

Schild und Schwert der Partei
Euodiachloris Since: Oct, 2010
#48483: Jan 30th 2013 at 6:26:49 AM

[up]See? Because nobody can agree on where, or even if, they should be tried... It kind of suggests they shouldn't be.

And, whatever they've done (if anything), frankly, they've been put through enough hell to pay for sixty times over. <_<

Continuing their limbo status is just pointless and, ultimately, stupid. They should never have been interrogated the way they were, if none of what came of it could be used anywhere legally. It was a fuck up from the get-go. Continuing to hold them is only compounding the problem logarithmically. And, has been for years. The interest? Is horrendous.

edited 30th Jan '13 6:27:56 AM by Euodiachloris

Greenmantle V from Greater Wessex, Britannia Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: Hiding
V
#48484: Jan 30th 2013 at 6:38:29 AM

[up][up]

None that wants to cover Guantanamo Bay*

.

Keep Rolling On
Achaemenid HGW XX/7 from Ruschestraße 103, Haus 1 Since: Dec, 2011 Relationship Status: Giving love a bad name
HGW XX/7
#48485: Jan 30th 2013 at 6:46:17 AM

[up][up]

What is suggests to me is that they have no cleanly obtained evidence on them.

Schild und Schwert der Partei
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#48486: Jan 30th 2013 at 6:47:24 AM

The point of detaining them is so they don't go back into the wild, as it were. They are judged too dangerous to release. Therefore, trying them would be counterproductive as their cases would almost certainly be thrown out and the detainees set free.

The choices appear to be:

  • Detain them indefinitely.
  • Set them free.
  • Try them, with the result that they will be set free.

If you have decided ahead of time that you won't set them free, then clearly there is only one choice.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Achaemenid HGW XX/7 from Ruschestraße 103, Haus 1 Since: Dec, 2011 Relationship Status: Giving love a bad name
HGW XX/7
#48487: Jan 30th 2013 at 6:50:20 AM

[up]

Or they could be released under terms and conditions, or they could use the British system (after the pesky ECHR and House of Lords blocked indefinite detention without trial of control orders). Or, frankly, we could set them free unconditionally, serving as a seminal lesson on why it is a seriously shitty idea to torture people.

Also, judged by whom? On what grounds is this judgement issued, and who may repeal or review it?

edited 30th Jan '13 6:52:06 AM by Achaemenid

Schild und Schwert der Partei
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#48488: Jan 30th 2013 at 6:50:56 AM

I'm just stating why they aren't being tried. I am not saying I agree with those reasons.

Besides, if you thought the Benghazi inquiries were bad, just imagine the hearings if we release one of these dudes and he later comes back to blow up a bus full of kids or something. Can you see the glee on the faces of Republicans in Congress, not to mention Fox News? They'd need towel aides to wipe up the drool.

edited 30th Jan '13 6:57:02 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Greenmantle V from Greater Wessex, Britannia Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: Hiding
V
#48489: Jan 30th 2013 at 6:50:57 AM

@ Achaemenid:

What is suggests to me is that they have no cleanly obtained evidence on them.

...or none they could use in Court without compromising ongoing operations, in any case.

edited 30th Jan '13 6:52:12 AM by Greenmantle

Keep Rolling On
Achaemenid HGW XX/7 from Ruschestraße 103, Haus 1 Since: Dec, 2011 Relationship Status: Giving love a bad name
HGW XX/7
#48490: Jan 30th 2013 at 6:56:04 AM

[up]

Then why not transfer them to a federal prison on US soil, and allow them time to prepare at least some kind of legal defense?

edited 30th Jan '13 6:56:24 AM by Achaemenid

Schild und Schwert der Partei
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#48491: Jan 30th 2013 at 6:56:46 AM

Because Congress won't allow it. Plus, in Federal prison they'd have the right of habeas corpus, the right to counsel, and similar things that would result, in short order, in their cases being thrown out. Any semi-competent attorney would claim improper detention plus torture and the judge would tell the prosecution to get bent.

edited 30th Jan '13 6:58:11 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Achaemenid HGW XX/7 from Ruschestraße 103, Haus 1 Since: Dec, 2011 Relationship Status: Giving love a bad name
HGW XX/7
#48492: Jan 30th 2013 at 7:00:05 AM

[up]

Why is that a bad thing? To give people rights under the legal system of the country of their detention? Rights that every person in that country should enjoy?

Or, the hearing could be held in secret.

edited 30th Jan '13 7:01:09 AM by Achaemenid

Schild und Schwert der Partei
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#48493: Jan 30th 2013 at 7:01:53 AM

I'm not saying it is. But if you accept the reason for their detention in the first place, that being the risk of them committing terrorist acts, then releasing them would, essentially, be letting freshly motivated enemy combatants out into the field. As soon as a single one of those people became involved in a terrorist incident, the GOP would savage Obama for it.

There's no win situation here, politically.

Frankly, I'm not sure why they aren't being detained as prisoners of war. Seems that would be an easy way around the habeas corpus requirement. However, we've done some stuff to them that is forbidden by international law, so we'd be guilty of war crimes.

edited 30th Jan '13 7:03:51 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Achaemenid HGW XX/7 from Ruschestraße 103, Haus 1 Since: Dec, 2011 Relationship Status: Giving love a bad name
HGW XX/7
#48494: Jan 30th 2013 at 7:03:10 AM

[up]

Fair enough. But surely you can simply lose politically? Have the balls to do something unpopular but just? It isn't like Obama can't do it - Exhibit A: Obamacare.

Obama could also point out that it was a Republican president that ordered the torture that led to the detention of these men being untenable, which could muddy the discourse enough to prevent him being seen as the villain by a large enough segment of the public to mitigate political damage.

Actually, they aren't treated as PO Ws for two reasons:

A: they aren't in uniform, nor are they soldiers (they are terrorists) and so it would encroach on the special status of PO Ws as detainees under the Geneva Convention

B: As PO Ws, they cannot be tortured.

I'll leave it up to you to decide which was more important to Dubya.

edited 30th Jan '13 7:07:53 AM by Achaemenid

Schild und Schwert der Partei
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#48495: Jan 30th 2013 at 7:06:02 AM

If Obama were to do that, he'd do well to make it a farewell act at the end of his final term. That way he wouldn't have to deal with the inevitable calls for impeachment or prosecution. Of course, he'd be handing the political mess over to his successor. Maybe that's the ticket: wait until 2016, and if a Republican gets elected, Obama releases all the Gitmo detainees.

[up] The media has more or less forgotten about George W. Bush. Intentionally so, in fact. When Bill O'Reilly debated Jon Stewart, one of his signature debate points was "Bush is gone". Nobody wants to talk about Bush, even if the fact that he did shit that Obama is stuck with is relevant. Even on the left, it's a dead issue.

edited 30th Jan '13 7:07:39 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Achaemenid HGW XX/7 from Ruschestraße 103, Haus 1 Since: Dec, 2011 Relationship Status: Giving love a bad name
HGW XX/7
#48496: Jan 30th 2013 at 7:06:59 AM

Another alternative would be to improve Gitmo to the standards of a humane prison, regardless of what this brings.

Also, if he waited, that gesture would be seen as sheer spite. He'd need some lead-up, at least, to avoid poisoning the inevitable discussions about legacy.

[up] Re: Dubya - so remind them. He's the Goddamm Batman President. He sets the national discussion, and it isn't like fanatically selling a party line is so hard for a party as strong as the present day Dems.

edited 30th Jan '13 7:11:18 AM by Achaemenid

Schild und Schwert der Partei
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#48497: Jan 30th 2013 at 7:12:22 AM

Obama has staked his reputation on being a conciliator, a centrist negotiator. He's not going to take any hard-line positions. That's just how it is. We can wish for more, but we almost certainly won't get it.

Edited to add: And there is a world of difference between applying principles like habeas corpus in a broad, ideological sense, and applying them to these specific people. On an entirely personal level, I cannot bring myself to care for the detainees. They engaged in acts of terrorism and this is the price they pay for it. I recognize that our detention of them violates the Constitution and international law, but my moral outrage stops at the point of giving a fuck about the people those principles apply to.

If that's hypocritical, so be it. I am, after all, only human.

edited 30th Jan '13 7:26:29 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Lawyerdude Citizen from my secret moon base Since: Jan, 2001
Citizen
#48498: Jan 30th 2013 at 7:38:57 AM

A President can only blame his predecessor for so long before it sounds like a cop-out.

But yeah, with the so-called "unlawful combatants", they exist in a legal grey area, made moreso by the fact that the US is holding them at Gitmo.

Consider, if a person commits a criminal act on a country's soil, then that person is subject to arrest and punishment according to the laws of that country. Simple.

But in this case, the US was conducting a military operation on foreign soil, and captured people who were essentially armed civilians, many of whom allegedly came into that foreign country for the explicit purpose of fighting the American invaders.

So that leads to the question of, what crimes did they commit? At best, you could say that they violated the laws and customs of war, because they were fighting without a command structure, uniforms and other conventional marks of a soldier.

But if a foreign country invades your homeland, how many of us would gladly take up arms to fight against them and drive them out? Or if a neighboring country gets invaded, and you were worried that your country was next on the list, wouldn't you join in to repel the foreign invaders?

And who is to say that the captured people are terrorists? Should we just accept it at face value? After all, they haven't been publicly tried, no evidence has been made public, and the few who have received trials were released due to lack of evidence.

edited 30th Jan '13 7:40:15 AM by Lawyerdude

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.
DrunkGirlfriend from Castle Geekhaven Since: Jan, 2011
#48499: Jan 30th 2013 at 7:44:34 AM

Also, to be fair, we don't have any idea what classified information there is in this situation. As long as we're involved in the Middle East, there might be stuff that can't be brought up at trial without getting a fuckton of people killed over there.

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian
Greenmantle V from Greater Wessex, Britannia Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: Hiding
V
#48500: Jan 30th 2013 at 7:47:09 AM

But in this case, the US was conducting a military operation on foreign soil, and captured people who were essentially armed civilians, many of whom allegedly came into that foreign country for the explicit purpose of fighting the American invaders...But if a foreign country invades your homeland, how many of us would gladly take up arms to fight against them and drive them out? Or if a neighboring country gets invaded, and you were worried that your country was next on the list, wouldn't you join in to repel the foreign invaders?

What happens if they come from half a world away, to fight against a country that is already fighting there, solely out a sense of (misguided) religious solidarity?

edited 30th Jan '13 7:48:03 AM by Greenmantle

Keep Rolling On

Total posts: 417,856
Top